ORIGINAL: shrewbeer

The things that article neglected to mention were all the evidence against him. It only listed the evidence for defense. Seems like a biased article, and impossible to tell what the real story is.
the third article states "In a hearing that took less than 10 minutes, Armando lost that appeal as well after one of the two judges present insinuated that each of Armando's three witnesses had lied under oath about tracking and recovering the buck.", and the only evidence listed that was given at the original trial was that some nobody biologist suggested that the arrow wound was done after death.
If in fact this is all the evidence that was against him, those judges should be disbarred. But there is no way in hell they convicted him just on that. There is much more to this story.